Open Access version via Utrecht University Repository

Uncomfortable Involvement of the Beholder
Leonardo da Vinci’s Angel of the Annunciation
Anonymous after Leonardo da Vinci.
Angel of the Annunciation.
Hermitage, Moscow.
Anonymous after Leonardo da Vinci.
Angel of the Annunciation.
(after first restoration).
Basel, Öffentliche Kunstsammlung.
Paula van Strien
Student number: 0432598
Supervisor: Prof.dr. Jeroen Stumpel
Art History of the Low Countries in its European Context
Utrecht University
1
Table of Content
Chapter 1: The Angel of the Annunciation
•
“A head of an angel”
•
An Angel of the Annunciation? Gesture and Smile
•
Netherlandish devotional images, Antonello da Messina and Leonardo
Chapter 2. Ways to include the beholder: the direct gaze
•
The appeal to the emotions of the viewer: Christ Carrying the Cross
•
“Sweetness and charm of manner”: Young Christ Teaching and Salvator
Mundi
•
The effect of the direct gaze
Chapter 3. Ways to include the beholder: lifelikeness
•
The illusionistic mode of representation
•
‘Figura serpentinata’ and chiaroscuro
•
Blurring the boundaries between the painting and the viewer
Chapter 4: The implications of the inclusion of the beholder
•
The gender of the beholder
•
The expected reaction of the viewer
Conclusion
Works cited
Images
2
Introduction
Leonardo da Vinci was very much aware of the beholder of his paintings. This
becomes clear when reading his art theoretical writings, as preserved in the socalled Paragone.1 In this text, painting’s ability to involve the spectator is
presented as an argument to support the view that it is superior to sculpture,
poetry and music. In his attempt to prove the pre-eminence of painting over poetry
he recalls, for example:
“One painter made such a figure that whoever saw it immediately yawned
and kept repeating this accident as long as his eyes were on the painting
which, like him, feigned someone yawning. Others have painted libidinous
acts, and so much lewdness that [the paintings] have incited spectators to the
same celebration. This, poetry will not do.”2
In his oeuvre, a similar interest in the engagement of the viewer can be detected,
especially in several works which were produced after the 1490’s.3 In his study on
art and the spectator, the art historian John Shearman discusses some of
Leonardo’s inventions in which the beholder even appears to become part of the
represented narrative. In the so-called Angel of the Annunciation, for example, the
spectator seems to be the receiver of the angel’s message and is thus placed in the
role of Mary.4 It has been argued that this work inspired other artists, such as
Giovanni Girolamo Savoldo (1480-1548) and Andrea del Sarto (1486 – 1531) to
create images in which the viewer is included in a similar way.5
This paper focuses on those characteristics of the Angel of the Annunciation which
contribute to the involvement of the beholder. It explores the origin of these
features in Northern (especially Netherlandish) and Venetian painting; and
1
This is the first part of the Trattato della Pittura, in which fragments of Leonardo’s manuscripts
which deal with the art of painting were compiled after his death. The Paragone, which deals with
the comparison of the arts, was probably composed between 1520 and 1570 by Leonardo’s pupil
Francesco Melzi. Most scholars agree that it is an accurate representation of Leonardo’s views.
The text received its current name when it was published in 1817, after it had been rediscovered in
the Vatican library. It is discussed in: Farago 1992; Zwijnenberg 1996.
2
“Uno pittore fecce una figura che, chi la vedeva subito sbadigliava e tanto replicava tale
accidente quando se teneva li occhi alla pittura, la quale ancho a lei, era finta sbadigliare. Altri
hanno depinto atti libbidinosi et tanto lussoriosi che hanno incitati li risguardatori di quelle alla
medissima festa, il non farà la poesia” (Paragone in: Farago 1992 (from now on abbreviated as:
Paragone) §25).
3
See: Gould 1975, 122-4. Leonardo’s interest in the involvement of the viewer is not discussed in
Freedberg 1989 or in Wolfgang Kemp’s Der Betrachter ist im Bild (Köln, 1985).
4
Shearman 1992,33-38.
5
See: Pardo 1989 and Shearman 1965, 107 note 1.
3
analyses their use in Leonardo’s oeuvre. In addition, it discusses the implications
of the viewer’s role as Mary in relation to this image.
In the first chapter I will introduce the Angel of the Annunciation. No autograph
painting representing the Gabriel is known. However, there are several sources
which suggest that Leonardo has indeed worked on “an angel” and which indicate
what this image may have looked like. Based on these sources, the composition
will be related to the visual tradition of the annunciation in order to support the
view that Leonardo indeed intended the figure to be identified as the announcing
angel.
In the second and third chapter I will focus on two characteristics of the Angel of
the Annunciation which contribute to the inclusion of the beholder: the fact that
protagonist’s gaze is directed at the spectator; and the lifelike nature of the image.
I will discuss the Northern (especially Netherlandish) and Venetian origins of
these features, point out their use in Leonardo’s oeuvre and analyse their effects
on the viewer.
In the fourth chapter I will focus on the implications of the fact that the viewer is
approached as being Mary. It will be investigated to what extent this indicates that
the work may have been intended for an actual female viewer. In addition, the
beholder’s expected reaction will be discussed. I will especially pay attention to
the apparent irreconcilability between the contemporary emphasis on Mary’s
chastity and the erotic nature of the image.
Throughout this thesis it will attempted to gain a better understanding of
Leonardo’s approaches to include the viewer in his images, especially as explored
in the Angel of the Annunciation.
4
Chapter 1: The Angel of the Annunciation
“A head of an angel”
In his account of Leonardo’s life, Giorgio Vasari (1511-1574) describes a painting
which was owned by Duke Cosimo de’Medici and which represented:
“a head of an angel who lifts one arm in the air, foreshortened from the
shoulder to the elbow, coming forwards and the other arm touching his chest
with one hand.”6
In Gaetano Milanesi’s nineteenth century edition of Vasari’s Lives, this quote is
followed by a footnote. It is stated that this representation of “an angel” was
thought to be lost, but was found in the possession of a painting restorer. It was in
a very poor condition and several experts had not believed it to be an autograph
work by Leonardo. However, the restorer added “un aspetto plausibile” and sold
the painting for a large sum of money. It was bought by “un signore russo.”7
In 1911 the art historian Emil Möller has published an article in which he
describes his quest to find this work. He had searched through catalogues of
Russian museums, and had found an angel in Leonardo’s style in the Hermitage in
St Petersburg [fig.1]. The painting had been part of the collection of the Galitzine
Museum, which was purchased by Tsar Alexander III in 1886. The owner of this
museum, A. Galitzine had acquired the work in Florence around 1831. Hence, he
could be identified as the “signore russo” to whom Milanesi refers.8
In the Galazine Museum, the work had been presented as autograph. However,
during an extensive restoration in 1888, during which the painting was transferred
to canvas, it became clear that this was not true. Thereafter, it was presented as an
“old copy after Leonardo’s John the Baptist in the Louvre.”9
6
“Questa [una testa d’una Medusa] è fra le cose eccellenti nel palazzo del duca Cosimo, insieme
con una testa d’uno angelo, che alza un brazzio in aria, che scorta dalla spalla al gomito venendo
innanzi, e l’altro ne va al petto con una mano” (Vasari, 1878-1885, vol IV, 26). English
translation: Nicholl 2004, 562 note 24.
7
“Quest’angelo, creduto per lungo tempo smarrito, fu trovato da un negoziante e ristrauratore di
quadri presso un rigattiere, ma in istato cosi mal concio che vari professori e intendenti, cui per
l’ananti era caduto sott’occhio, non avevano neppur sospettato che fosse opera di Leonardo:
nondimeno il nominato restauratore colle industrie dell’arte sua giunse a dargli un aspetto
plausibile e tale da prendere buona somma. Fu acquistato dipoi da un signore russo” (Milanesi in:
Vasari, 1878-1885, vol IV, 26 note 2).
8
Möller 1911, 533.
9
Ibidem, 533-4.
5
After Möller had rediscovered this work, he asked Marie Herzfeld, a Leonardo
expert, to examine the painting for him. She found out that the figure had wings,
which were hardly visible, due to the bad condition of the work. It also became
clear that these wings were no later additions.10
Based on the Leonardesque style Möller concludes that the painting was probably
copied during the sixteenth century by one of Leonardo’s followers, after a work
by the master.11
In several publications of the 1960’s to 1980’s the work which was seen by Vasari
is also discussed. However, these scholars do not pay attention to the Hermitage
painting. Instead, they relate the description to a different copy by a follower,
which is in the possession of the Öffentliche Kunstsammlung, Basel [fig.3].12
According to these art historians, this work also represents an angel. However, I
was not able to detect any wings. Therefore, I contacted the current curator of old
master paintings of the museum, Dr. Bodo Brinkmann, in order to ask for a better
picture. In his reply, the states:
“our Inv. No. 1879 has a rather complicated history of restoration: At
the beginning of the 20th century the wings of the angel were restored
under the assumption that they were original. A recent examination
has proven this wrong; hence the later additions were removed and the
title changed: The work figures now as another one of the many
versions of Leonardo's St. John the Baptist [fig.4].”13
Doris Hascher, the secretary of old master paintings of this museum, has informed
me that the “recent examination” and consecutive changing of the figure’s identity
took place in 1989.14
Why did the restorers decide to change the Angel to a St John the Baptist? The
answer to this question might be found in Möller’s article, in which a strikingly
similar painting representing a St. John the Baptist is reproduced [fig.2].15 This
10
Idem.
Ibidem, 535. Although Galizine had bough this copy in Florence, this does not prove that this
was the work which was once in the collection of Cosimo.
12
Brown 1981; Shearman 1988.
13
This was communicated by means of an e-mail which was send on Friday, May 08, 2009
9:41:48 AM.
14
This I learned from an e-mail which was send on Tuesday, August 25, 2009 2:46:03 PM
15
The same figure appears in the monograph by Wilhehm Suida: 1929, 87 fig.149.
11
6
work had been bought from a French collector by Jakob Burkhardt(!) in 1850.16
The art historian gave it to the Mayer of Basel, Sarasin-Brunnen, who passed it on
to his son, Dr. F. Sarazin, in 1908.
This Dr. F. Sarazin is also mentioned in connection to the Angel/St John the
Baptist in the Öffentliche Kunstsammlung, Basel: the work had been donated to
the museum by him.17 Therefore, it appears that the St John the Baptist which was
reproduced in Möller’s article of 1911, is identical to the Inv. No. 1879 of the
Basel museum.
I concluded that the restoring of the wings of the angel at the beginning of the
twentieth century, which was reported to me by Dr. Bodo Brinkmann, must have
entailed much more than that: it seems as if the figure was transformed from a St.
John the Baptist to an Angel. Apparently, it became clear during the
“examination” of 1989 that the work had originally not represented an Angel, after
which this restoration was reversed again.18
Interestingly, before the wings of the figure in the Hermitage painting were
discovered by Möller’s assistanr, this work was also believed to be a
representation of a St John the Baptist. The confusion between these identities
might be related to the fact that these two figures are closely connected in
Leonardo’s oeuvre: the composition of the Angel is very similar to his St John the
Baptist (1513-16) in the Louvre [fig.5].19 However, in the latter work the artist
decided to change the position of the right arm. It has been argued that this
alteration of the composition either took place during the last Roman period or
during the earliest phase of the French period.20
16
Möller reproduces the work in its frame, which is in the Ludwig XVI style. This suggests that
the work had probably been in the collection of the French King (although it is not mentioned in
the inventory of the Louvre of 1710). Möller suggests that it may have been stolen from the king’s
collection during the French revolution. (Möller 1911, 538).
17
This was confirmed by Doris Hascher in the e-mail which was send on Tuesday, August 25,
2009 2:46:03 PM.
18
Based on the reproductions I have noticed a differences between the upper part of the drapery of
the first and last state of this John the Baptist: in the latter version, the paint seems to have been
less strongly applied than before 1929. This may be relate to the fact that when the work
represented the “angel” the left shoulder was exposed.
19
The relation between these projects has been established in Möller 1911. Another copy which
represents a St. John the Baptist in the same pose as the angel is in the Sammlung W.G. Walters,
London and is reproduced by Ibidem, fig.1.
20
Della Chiesa 1967, cat.no. 36.
7
The artist probably invented the composition of the Angel in the early sixteenth
century: a sketch for this figure has been found among studies for the Battle of
Anghiari, which he was working on around 1504-5.21 This drawing shows a
winged figure, whose right forearm is pointing vertically upward and whose left
hand touches his chest [fig.6]. It has been attributed to a pupil (although it is
unsure which one), but Leonardo probably corrected the position of the right
arm.22 Moreover, it is likely to have been based on an invention by Leonardo,
since it has been argued that the work of his pupils and followers “is valuable for
their lack of originality”, which means that “they provide records of Leonardo’s
ideas otherwise unknown to us.”23
There is also a related autograph drawing on blue paper, known as the Angelo
Incarnato- the ‘Angel made flesh’, which is datable to 1513-15 [fig.7]. The work
shows an androgynous male figure, without wings, whose physical appearance
and pose are similar to the character in the Hermitage painting.24 A comparable
figure (but mirrored) without any wings is recorded in a drawing [fig.8] by the
Florentine sculptor Baccio Bandinelli (ca. 1493-1560).25
Another source which can be related to this project is Carlo Amoretti’s Memorie
Storiche su la Vita, gli Studi, e le Opere di Lionardo da Vinci of 1804. Here,
Amoretti claims that the “angel” which was described a Vasari was in the house
of Anguissola in Milan. He identifies the figure as “angelo in atto d’annunziare
M.V”.26 Thereafter, the invention was known as the Angel of the Annunciation.27
21
Möller dates the sketch 1507-9 and (Möller 1911, 531-2).
Möller suggests that this sketch work may have been executed by Francesco Melzi. There are
also studies of the angel’s left hand (executed by a pupil) preserved in the Codex Atlanticus (CA
395ar/146r-b). A study in red chalk by Leonardo is in the Venice Accademia (no.138) (Nicholl
2004, 469, 562 note 25).
23
Brown 1981, 50.
24
However, this figure has a pronounced breast, as well as an erect penis. The work was kept in
the private collection of a ‘noble German family’, and was rediscovered in 1991. The grey-brown
area around the penis was caused by an attempt to erase this feature (Nicholl 2004, 469).
25
Current whereabouts unknown (Ibidem, 469, 562 note 24).
26
Möller 1911, 537. Amoretti’s work can be found in the 1804 edition of Leonardo’s Trattato
della Pittura. Unfortunately, I have not been able to consult this work yet.
27
This title is, for example, recognized in: Brown 1981, 44; Shearman 1992, 33; Nicholl 2004.
469. Möller does not accept this identification, because he finds it unconvincing to believe the
viewer would be in the position of Mary. Instead, he suggests that the work represents the Gardian
Angel (Möller 1911, 539).
22
8
An Angel of the Annunciation? Gesture and Smile
Since Vasari did not recognize the angel as Gabriel, it is necessary to discover
whether Leonardo indeed intended to represent this character. Therefore, I will
compare the work to the visual tradition of the annunciation.
One of the most striking features which is present in all works which can be
related to this project, is the index finger of the right hand, which is pointing
upwards. This element is also mentioned by Vasari, who states that the angel “lifts
one arm in the air”. As a result, the gesture draws attention to the heavens, or to
whatever comes from above. It was used in many representations of John the
Baptist, who predicted the coming of Christ and the kingdom of heavens.28
Examples of such works are Cima da Conegliano’s St John the Baptist with Saints
(1491-92); Domenico Ghirlandaio’s Preaching of St John the Baptist (1486-90);
Giovanni Francesco Rustici’s Preaching of St John the Baptist (1506-11); a small
picture of St John the Baptist in Musée Condé at Chantilly by an assistant of Fra
Filippo Lippi; and Leonardo’s St John the Baptist in the Louvre (1513-16) [fig.912].
In addition, the gesture also can be found in several fifteenth century Florentine
depictions of the angel of the annunciation, such as the Annunciation [fig.13] by
Fra Angelico (ca. 1395-1455) and the Annunciation [fig.14] by Domenico
Veneziano (ca. 1410-1461).29 However, in fifteenth and early sixteenth century
Italy, it was more common to depict a sign of blessing, as in Leonardo’s
Annunciation in the Uffizi [fig.15]. The upward pointing finger seems to have
been more widespread in earlier representations of the event and above the Alps.
It occurs, for example, in the Ghent altarpiece [fig.16] and panel in the National
Gallery of Art in Washington [fig.17] by the Northern artist Jan van Eyck (c.13901441); and in Simone Martini’s Annunciation [fig.18] in the Uffizi.
When looking closely at annunciation story (as told in Luke 1: 26-38) and the
visual tradition of its representation, it could be argued that both the upward
pointing finger and the sign of blessing express the angel’s greeting Mary.
28
“In those days John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness of Judea, proclaiming ‘Repent, for
the kingdom of heavens has come near’” (Matthew 3.1-3.2). Similarly, John the Baptist stated that
“the one who comes from above is above all; the one who is of the earth belongs to the earth and
speaks of earthly things.” (John 3.31).
29
Wohl 1980, 52 and 62, note 52.
9
According to Luke, the angel saluted Mary with the words “Ave Maria, gratia
plena, Dominus tecum” (“Greetings Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with you”).30
In some versions, this sentence was followed by the words “Blessed are you
among women”. This is, for example, the case in the Ave Maria prayer.31 In my
opinion, the blessing gesture in depictions of the annunciation refers to the second
sentence of the salutation.
The representations of the event by Martini and Van Eyck, which are mentioned
above, focus on the first sentence. In fact, in each of the works these Latin words
are literally depicted as if they are emerging from the angel’s mouth. In these
images the salutation is paired with the upward pointing finger. As a result, there
seems to be a link between the words and the gesture. Similarly, in the
Annunciation [fig.19] by the German artist Veit Stoß (1517-1518), the finger of
the angel’s right hand is pointing upwards, while the words of the salutation are
written on a roll which he is holding in his left hand. Interestingly, in a document
of 1518 this work is referred to as representing a ‘Saluting Angel’.32
In my opinion, the pointing at the sky is especially related to the most meaningful
part of the sentence: “the Lord is with you”. In Leonardo’s work, these words
appear to have been substituted by the gesture.
The deeper meaning of these words seem to be hinted at by the angel’s smile.
According to Marilyn Lavin, this facial expression was common in
representations of angels and articulated their “joy […] at the prospect of the
salvation of mankind.”33 The seeds of this idea were already present in a statement
by Origen (ca.185–254): “the angels are in the service of our salvation”. Gregory
of Nyssa (ca. 335 – 394) added: “there is great joy among the angels over those
who have been saved from sin.”34
There are many fifteenth century representations of angels who are sharing their
knowledge of the prospect of salvation by directing their gaze at the viewer, while
smiling. The angel on the right in Fillipo Lippi’s Madonna and Child with two
Angels [fig. 20] in the Uffizi is an example of such a figure. Lavin states: “His
30
Luke 1:28.
Of which the first two sentences read: “Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee; blessed
art thou among women,” (Ave Maria, gratia plena, Dominus tecum; benedicta tu in mulieribus).
32
“Item außgeben adi augusto fur den roßenkrancz mit dem englischen gruß gen sant Laurenczen
mitsampt dem leucher, der gestet mich, als hernach stet.” Quoted in: Bott 1983, 202.
33
Lavin 1981, 197.
34
Ibidem, 206 note 21 and 23.
31
10
knowledge of mankind’s coming salvation makes the angel smile. And fulfilling
his function as messenger of divine revelation, he directs his gaze at the
worshipper to broadcast this knowledge to the world.”35
Similarly, in Leonardo’s invention the angel’s smile reveals the deeper meaning
of the gesture which substitutes the words “Greetings Mary, full of grace, the Lord
is with you”: the Virgin will carry God’s Son, who will save mankind. This
salutation and smile are directed at the viewer, who, as a result, becomes the
recipient of the angel’s message.
Like the upward pointing finger, the smile is also more often found in depictions
of the annunciation across the Alps.36 Van Eyck’s panel in the National Gallery of
Art in Washington, is an example of such a work. This suggests that Leonardo
was inspired by Northern representations of Gabriel. Another characteristic which
supports this view is the fact that Leonardo’s figure is not kneeling, as was
common in Italian representations, but is standing, as in the Northern tradition.
Netherlandish devotional images, Antonello da Messina and Leonardo
Leonardo was not the only artists who was interested in Northern, especially
Netherlandish, painting. Particularly in Venice, which was an important
economic, cultural and artistic centre during the Renaissance, many such works
were available.37 Antonello da Messina (c.1430-1479) was one of the artists who
became inspired by Netherlandish paintings. His Salvator Mundi [fig. 21] is an
interesting example, since it is very similar to a depiction of the same theme by
Hans Memling (c.1430–1494) [fig. 22]. Both figures are represented frontally and
in half-length. In addition, both are smiling and the form of their heads and
beards, as well as the position of their hands, are alike. This suggests that the two
artist might have seen a third work, possibly a lost painting by the Rogier van der
Weyden (1399/1400-1464).38
35
Ibidem, 198.
Leibrich 1997, 60.
37
Aikema 1999, 21-25.
38
By means of infra-red reflectography it has been shown that the underdrawn position of Christ’s
raised hand is closer to Memling’s work original than the painted hand (Dukerton 1999, 98). There
are, however, also some important dissimilarities between the images: the gesture of Memling’s
Christ is more traditional, while Antonello’s savior more directly addresses the viewer. At the
same time, the parapet and symmetrical face which are represented in the latter image, also create
distance (Markgraf 1990, 143, 145, 148-9).
36
11
These two Salvator Mundi’s can be placed in the tradition of a type of religious
image for which the art historian S. Ringbom has coined the term ‘dramatic closeup’. This type of work, which was invented in the Netherlands, focuses on an
isolated figure (or a small selection of figures), which has been represented in
half-length.39 The ‘dramatic’ close-up is strongly related to Netherlandish
portraiture. In both kinds of painting one could, for example, encounter
represented figures who are directly gazing at the spectator [see, for example, fig.
23 and fig.24].
Leonardo’s Angel of the Annunciation could, in a way, be seen as complementary
to another ‘dramatic close-up’ by Antonello: the Virgin Annunciate of the mid1470’s. The Sicilian master has made two versions of the theme. One of these is
in Munich’s Pinakothek [fig.25]; the other in Museo Nazionale, Palermo
[fig.26].40 Both paintings represent one of the key figures of the annunciation: the
Virgin Mary. At the same time, it has been argued, her mouth and gestures show
her awareness of the presence of the angel. The latter figure has not been
depicted41, but seems to be positioned outside the picture plane, in the space of the
beholder.42
Leonardo may have seen either one or both of Antonello’s representations of the
Virgin Annunciate. The Munich work was, for example, in Florence for some
time.43 David Alan Brown, who seems to have noticed Leonardo’s interest in the
involvement of the viewer, states that Antonello’s painting is “echoed
superficially in Florentine paintings before Leonardo left for Milan ca. 1482. The
expressive possibilities of Antonello’s painting which were lost on the Florentine
imitators, would certainly have intrigued Leonardo.”44 In fact, the Angel of the
Annunciation represents the other protagonist of the annunciation story and he is
also depicted is half-length. However, there is also an important difference
39
Ringbom 1965, 5-6, 39, 48.
There is a copy of the Palermo painting in the Galleria dell’ Academia, Venice.
41
F. Zeri has suggested that the angel may have been represented in a missing pendant. However,
this assumption has been dismissed on the ground that there are not clues in any of the surviving
works which hint at this. Moreover, it has been argued that it is unconvincing to belief that the
same pendant of two different works are lost (Marabottini 1981, 148).
42
This was noted by many scholars, such as: Markgraf 1990, 126; Collareta 2006, 67.
43
In addition, the copy in the Accademia, which was “initially considered the original”, “was
recorded in Venice in 1809”. (Pardo 1989, 77, note 40). Leonardo was in Venice around 1500.
44
Brown 1981, 138-9, note 95.
40
12
between Antonello’s and Leonardo’s representations: even in the work in
Palermo, in which Mary’s face is turned towards the spectator, the figure is not
directly looking the viewer in the eyes, as is the case in Leonardo’s invention.
13
Chapter 2. Ways to include the beholder: the direct gaze
The appeal to the emotions of the viewer: Christ Carrying the Cross
In earlier works, Leonardo had already experimented with the direct gaze of the
protagonist. His Christ Carrying the Cross of the 1490’s is an interesting
example. No finished autograph painting representing this theme is known.
However, there is a drawing in the Academia in Venice [fig.27] which has been
connected to this project.45 Furthermore, there are works by Andrea Solario
(ca.1460-1524) [fig.28] and Giampietrino (active ca. 1520-1540) [fig.29] which
seem to have been based on this drawing. It is not known to what extent Leonardo
himself elaborated on this theme, but based on the different versions by his
followers it has been suggest that “it is probable that he executed other
preparatory studies, at least one more elaborated design comprising the motif of
the bent arm which recurs in all repetitions executed in his circle.”46 Attempts
have been made to reconstruct what Leonardo’s Christ Carrying the Cross must
have looked liked. The following features are most common in the works by
Leonardo’s followers:
“the shoulder tuned away from the beholder […], so much as to display the
back of Christ; the head turned towards the beholder; one arm bent at a sharp
angle and the other resting with the hand on the stem of the cross; the
shoulder bare, and a rope around the neck.”47
It has been argued that German prints, for example by Schongauer [fig.30], may
have inspired Leonardo to represent this theme.48 As in Leonardo’s drawing,
Schongauer’s print shows a suffering Christ who is carrying the cross (although
Leonardo’s figure is represented in half-length). Moreover, in both works, the
protagonist is interrupting the narrative by looking straight at he viewer. James
Marrow has related this last feature to Vita Christi by Ludolph of Saxony (?1378). In this work, Saxony interrupts his discussion of the Mockery of Christ in
order to ask the reader:
45
Suida has dated it 1499-1500, but according to Ringbom it was created during Leonardo’s
Milanese period (Ringbom 1965,148).
46
Ibidem, 153.
47
Ibidem, 148.
48
Marani 1992 346.
14
“what would you do if you saw this? Would you not cast yourself upon our
Lord, saying ‘Do not harm him so; behold, here am I, strike me instead?’…
Compassionate our Lord, for he is bearing all this torment for you; shed
abundant tears and wash reverently away with them the spittle with which
those profane wretches besmeared his face, For who, hearing or considering
his mind… could refrain himself from tears?”49
Marrow argues that the direct address in representations of the Christ Carrying
the Cross is a similar demand for a response.50
Some representations of the Christ Carrying the Cross also include a figure who
seems to serve as an example of how the viewer could react in relation to the
event. In the lower left corner of the Christ Carrying the Cross [fig. 31] by
Hieronymous Bosch (1453-1516), for example, we see Veronica. According to the
legend, she showed her compassion by wiping off the sweat of Christ’s face,
while he carried the cross to Calvary. Miraculously, his images was imprinted on
her veil; in fact, in Bosch’s work, Veronica is holding the Sudarium [see also
fig.31]. Another work in which this event is portrayed is the Christ Carrying the
Cross [fig.33] by Giovanni Cariani (1490-1547). Interestingly, in this image
Christ is not looking at the viewer, but at Veronica’s veil. In Leonardo’s
invention, on the other hand, the protagonist gazes directly at the beholder.51 As a
result, the spectator seems to be invited to act like Veronica, and thus show
compassion.
The Christ Carrying the Cross is closely related to other half-length
representations of the suffering Christ, such as the Man of Sorrows.52 This theme
was both represented in Italy and the North. However, in Netherlandish images
the use of oil paint made it possible to represent the outward signs of the
suffering, such as blood, in a more lifelike manner [see fig.34]. This way the
spectator could better identify with the pain of the Passion: “by dwelling on its
physical manifestations, the artist could heighten the viewer’s perception- literal
or spiritual- of his sacrifice.”53
49
quoted in: Marrow 1986, 155.
Ibidem, 164-5.
51
In the drawing in the Academia this is more direct than in some of the works by the followers.
52
Ringbom 1965,148.
53
Nutall 2004, 40.
50
15
The suffering was also visible in the facial expression of Christ. Its effect of had
already been described in Della Pittura by Leon Battista Alberti (1404-1472):
“A historia will move the spectator when the men painted in the picture
outwardly demonstrate their own feelings as clearly as possible… we mourn
with the mourners, laugh with those who laugh, and grieve with the griefstricken. Yet these feelings are known from movements of the body. We see
how the melancholy, preoccupied with the cares and beset by grief, lack all
vitality of feeling and action, and remain sluggish, their limbs unsteady and
drained of colour. In those who mourn, the brow is weighed down, the neck
bent, and every part of their body droops as though weary and past care.”54
The fact that Netherlandish works could indeed evoke an emotional response is
attested by a statement which, according to Francesco da Hollanda, was expressed
by Michelangelo: Netherlandish painting will “please the devout better than any
painting of Italy” because it can lead to “many tears” from the viewer.55 In this
account, the appeal to emotions of Netherlandish painting is presented as
something negative, because it is considered unintellectual.56
“Sweetness and charm of manner”: Young Christ Teaching and Salvator
Mundi
Leonardo, on the other hand, appears to have been fascinated by the involvement
of the spectator in the represented scene. In two later inventions, the Young Christ
Teaching and the Salvator Mundi, he further explores the possibilities of the direct
gaze of the protagonist. Both of these compositions have been related to a
commission by Isabella d’Este (1474 - 1539), duchess of Mantua.
Leonardo had spend time at Isabella’s court around 1500, after he had visited
Venice. From their correspondence it becomes clear that he seems to have
promised her to paint her portrait after a sketch. He did not fulfil her demand, but
54
Quoted in: Nutall 2004, 38.
“La pittura fiamminga... generalmente soddisferà un devoto qualunque più che la pittura ilaliana; questa
non gli farà versare una lagrima, mentre quella di Fiandra glie ne farà versare molte, e ciò non per vigore
e bontà di quella pittura, ma per la bontà de quel tal devoto. Essa piacerà assai alle donne, principalmente
quelle molto vecchie, e a quelle molto giovani, e così pure ai frati, alle monache, e a qualche gentiluomo
privo del senso musicale della vera armonia. Si dipingono in Fiandra, propriamente per ingannare la vista
esteriore, delle cose grandevoli, o delle cose, di cui non si possa parlar male, come santi e profeti. Questa
pittura si compone di drappi, di casupole, di verdure compestri, di ombre d’alberi di ponti e ruscelli, ed
eddi chiamano ciò paesaggio con qualche figurina qua e là. E tutto questo, che passa per buono per certi
occhi, è in realtà senza ragione né arte, senza simetria né proporzione, senza discernimento né scelta, né
disegno, in uno parola senza sostanza e senza nerbo” (quoted in: Nutall 2008, 36).
56
Nutall 2004, 40.
55
16
Isabella was still interested in receiving a painting by the artist. Therefore, she
sent a letter on May 14, 1504, in which she asked him:
“to convert our portrait into another figure which would be even more
pleasing to us, that is, to make of it a Youthful Christ about twelve years old,
the age he would have been when he disputed in the temple, executed with
all that sweetness and charm of manner which is the particular excellence of
your art.”57
It has been suggested that Leonardo may have experimented with the theme of the
Youthful Christ in Mantua, which might have inspired Isabella to commission the
work.58 The “sweetness and charm of manner” may very well refer to the
youthful, feminine nature of some of Leonardo’s male figures.
On October 31, 1504 Isabella sends a reminder, but on May 1506 there is still no
painting. Then, nothing else is heard of the matter.59 It is not documented whether
Leonardo completed this work and no finished autograph painting which
represents this theme has survived. However, several scholars have argued that the
artist must have worked on the commission. Nine reproductions by artists in the
circle of Leonardo, which represent Christ as a youth and which are more or less
related to the Salvator Mundi-theme, have been related to this project.60 In
addition, there are autograph drapery studies by Leonardo at Windsor Castle, of
which it has been argued that they are connected to this invention.61 Sir Kenneth
Clark believes that “in any case, he seems to have carried out the single figure of a
Christ bearing a globe”.62 Suida has argued that the panel which is attributed to
Marco d’Oggionno (Rome, Gallaria Borghese) [fig. 35] is closest to Leonardo’s
lost work. It may even have been completed under the master’s supervision.63
Interestingly, Suida has stated that the Salvator Mundi was a preparatory step for
57
“… convertire el retratto nostro in un’altra figura che ne sarà anchor più grata, cioè farni uno
Christo giovanetto de anni circa duodeci, che seria de qualla età che l’haveva quando disputò nel
tempio, et facto cum quella dolcezza e suavità de aiere che haveti per arte peculiare in excellentia”
(quoted in: Brown, 1981, 124 note 28). English translation: Brown, 1981, 26. Italics are mine.
58
This was suggested by Suida. See: Ringbom 1965, 175-6.
59
Ibidem, 177.
60
Brown, 1981, 27
61
Widsor 12524 (c. 1510-15), red chalk with touches of white, 22x 13.9cm; and Windsor 12525
(c.1510-15), red and white chalk with pen and ink, 16.4x 15.8 cm. Joanne Snow-Smith has argued
that these sketches are not related to the commission by Isabella d’ Este. She refers to Carlo
Pedretti, who, on the basis of his examination of their reverse sides, has argued that the drawings
must be dated between 1510 and 1515, long after Isabella’s plea (Snow-Smith 1982,18).
62
Quoted in: Ringbom 1965, 177.
63
Idem.
17
the Angel of the Annunciation.64 In fact, the figures in these two inventions are
both represented with “sweetness and charm of manner”, as Isabella had
requested.
David Alan Brown, on the other hand, has argued that Leonardo did not execute a
Salvator Mundi but a Youthful Christ for Isabella, as she had asked for. According
to him, the works which were made in the circle of Leonardo, and which are
related to the Salvator Mundi-theme, were not created after a cartoon (since the
costumes and facial types are too dissimilar), nor after a finished work (since the
colours vary). He argues that they are based on preparatory drawings. This, in his
opinion, suggests that the finished painting was probably not available for study in
Milan, possibly since it was send hastily.65
He refers to Christ among the Doctors [fig. 36] by Bernardino Luini (ca. 1480/821532) and states:
“Luini must have known studies by Leonardo for the Youthful Christ, and,
unlike the followers of Leonardo who treated the figure as globe-bearing or
blessing, he must have been aware that Leonardo’s Christ was shown in the
action of teaching. Probably for this reason Luini added the figures of the
doctors.”66
As a result, there is a strange relation between Christ and the Doctors: the teaching
young man does not address the elders, but communicates with the viewer.67
Brown argues that Correggio (born as Antonio Allegri, 1489-1534) has seen
Leonardo’s finished work in Mantua, which, according to the scholar, is reflected
in his Youthful Christ [Fig.37]. As in Luini’s work, Christ’s gaze and gestures are
directed at the beholder, but Correggio has isolated the figure. As a result, the
viewer takes the role of one of the doctors, who is taught by Him. This, according
to Brown, shows that “the younger artist has evidently understood and transmitted
the aim of Leonardo’s prototype to involve the spectator as directly as possible in
the action of the painting”.68
64
See: Ibidem, 177-8.
Brown 1981, 27-8.
66
Ibidem, 45.
67
This was first noted by Jacob Burckhardt: “von Luini ist […] (in der National Galery) das aus
Palazzo Aldobrandini in Rom stammende Kniestück, da Christus in noch jugendliche
Engelsgestalt redend gegen den Beschauer vortritt; zu den Seiten vier Gestalten, welche man für
Schriftgelehrte hielt, wärend es eher Gläubige sind, sodaß an den Vorgang im Tempel nicht mehr
zu denken wäre“ (Burkhardt 2000, 71).
68
Brown 1981, 45.
65
18
The effect of the direct gaze
Although Brown does not clearly state this, he thus hints at the view that the
intense relation between the represented figure and the beholder was a vital
preoccupation of Leonardo. In fact, as in the Christ Carrying the Cross, the
protagonists of the Salvator Mundi, the Young Christ Teaching and the Angel of
the Annunciation gaze directly at the spectator. As a result, the viewer is included
in the scene: Christ Carrying the Cross invites the beholder to be compassionate,
like Veronica, and in the Young Christ by Luini and Correggio, the viewer takes
the role of one of the doctors who is taught by Christ. Similarly, the direct address
of the Angel of the Annunciation indicates that the viewer is the receiver of the
angel’s message, who thus takes the role of the Virgin Mary.69
The fact that this type of involvement of the viewer is largely due to the direct
gaze of the protagonist becomes clear when comparing the Angel of the
Annunciation to Antonello’s Virgin Annunciate. In the latter work, the viewer of
is not (necessarily) placed in the position of the angel, since the protagonist does
not look straight at the beholder. In fact, it has been argued that “it is even
possible to avoid the issue altogether with Antonello’s picture, taking it as a
representation merely of the Virgin reading, not interrupted by anything so
specific as the angel’s message”.70
On the other hand, not all images in which the protagonist is looking at the viewer
evoke a similar response of the spectator. The Angel of the Annunciation is, for
example, less ‘dramatic’ than the Christ Carrying the Cross, in the sense that it
does not focus on pain and suffering. Rather, the work is more similar to the
Salvator Mundi and the Young Christ Teaching, which represent young, feminized
male figures, in a “sweet and elegant manner”. These character, who might even
be described as “angelic”, do not appeal to the spectator’s pity, but can evoke
different responses. The effect of “the beautiful proportions of an angelic face in
painting”71 is described in a statement by Leonardo in the Paragone:
69
This idea is expressed in: Shearman 1992, 33, 59; Brown 1981, 45; Collareta 2006, 73
Shearman 1992, 36.
71
“le proportionali bellezze d’un angelico viso posto in pittura” (Paragone §21).
70
19
“If such a harmony of beauties is shown to the lover of whatever beauties are
being imitated, without doubt he will be stupefied with admiration and
incomparable joy and overcome in all of his other senses.”72
Similarly, the beholder of figures such as the Angel of the Annunciation could be
“stupefied with admiration and incomparable joy”.
72
“E sse tal armonia delle bellezze sarano mostrato allo amante di quella da chi tale bellezze sonno
immitate, sanza dubbio esso restara con istupenda admiratione et gaudio incomparabile e superiore
a tutti gli altri sensi” (Idem.)
20
Chapter 3. Ways to include the beholder: lifelikeness
The illusionistic mode of representation
In the Paragone there are also several other paragraphs in which Leonardo
describes the response of viewers to paintings. He elaborates most on the effect of
lifelike images:
“Thereby lovers are moved by the simulacra of their beloved to speak with
painted imitations. Thereby, with fervent vows, people are moved to speak
out the simulacra of gods, and not the sight of the works of poets which
figure the same gods with words. Thereby, animals are deceived. Once I saw
a painting deceive a dog so that he most joyfully greeted the similitude of his
master. Similarly, I have seen dogs bark and try to bite dogs in paintings, and
a monkey did infinite crazy things in front of another, painted one. I have
seen swallows fly light on bars which have been painted so that they seem to
project from the windows of buildings.”73
This fragment clearly attest to the fact that Leonardo was familiar with Natural
History by the antique writer Pliny (23 BCE- 79 CE), which includes many
anecdotes of viewers (animals, as well as people) who mistake an image for
reality.74 Leonardo was not the only one to have read this work: painting’s ability
to fool the viewer can be found in Renaissance literature “from Dante, Petrarch
and Boccaccio to Ariosto and Castiglione.”75 An Interesting example of such a
literary work is the first novella of Le Porretane (c. mid-1490’s) by the Bolognese
author Giovanni Sabadino degli Arienti. It describes how a man places himself in
front of a painted pope and starts acting as if he were an emperor. This he
continues doing until he experiences the embarrassing event of being witnessed by
a friend.76 This fragment suggests that fifteenth and early sixteenth-century
73
“Con questa si move li amante in verso li simulacra della cosa amata a parlare con le imitate
pitture. Con questa si move li populi con infervorati voti a ricercare li simulacri delli iddij, et non
un vedere l’opere de poeti, che con parole figurino li medesimi iddij. Con questa s’ingannano li
animali. Già vido io una pittura che inganava il cane mediante la similutudine del suo patrone, alla
quale esso cane facea grandissima festa. Et similmente ho visto li cani baiare et voler mordere li
cani depinti, et una scimmia far infinite pazzie contro ad un’altra scimmia depinta. Ho veduto le
rondini volare e possarsi sopra li ferri depinti che sportano fori delle finestre delli edifitij
(Paragone §14).
74
Farago 1992, 352.
75
Shepherd 2000, 65.
76
This work was apparently presented to the Duke of Ferrara in the mid-1490’s (Shepherd 2000,
64).
21
beholders indeed in some cases performed a particular role in relation to images,
as would be the case in the Angel of the Annunciation.
Based on Pliny’s descriptions it was believed that lifelikeness had been a vital
characteristic of antique painting.77 In the Paragone the effect of such images is
used to prove painting’s superiority over the other arts. However, in my opinion,
these anecdotes could only convincingly demonstrate the power of painting if the
reader could relate them to existing images which could deceive the viewer.
Such images did, in fact exist. When writing this paragraph, Leonardo may
especially have thought of Netherlandish paintings, whose verisimilitude was
often praise by Italian writers. The Florentine art theorist Antonfrancesco Doni
wrote, for example, in his Disegno (1549):
“the grace and technique of velvets and other silken draperies, as well as the
draping of cloths and veils mentioned just now, for a diligent method of
colouring, above all other master it is the Flemings who paint them well, in
such a way that they make them appear most naturalistic: such that one is
deceived by their fictive brocades or cloths […].”78
Leonardo would not have been the first to have recognized a parallel between the
lifelikeness of Netherlandish and antique painting. In On Famous Men79 (ca.
1455) Bartolommeo Fazio states that he believes that Van Eyck had “discovered
many things about the properties of colour recorded by the ancients and learned
by him from reading of Pliny and other authors.”80 Facio knew that Pliny had
written that the antique painter Zeuxis “produced a picture of grapes so
successfully represented that birds flew up to the easel”, and Antiphilus showed a
room as though “lit by the reflection from the fire.”81 He points out similar
77
Nutall 2004, 35.
The full quote reads: “La grazia e la prattica de’velluti o altri drappi di seta, ancora che la
dependa da’panni e veli detti poco fa, per esserci una diligente prattica di colori sopra tutti gli altri
maestri gli dipingon bene I Fiamminghi, in modo che gli fanno parer naturalissimi: tanto che i loro
finti broccati o rasi ingannano l’uomo. Perché in queste cose di leggier disegno gl’oltramontani ci
aplicano pi l’ingegno e la pratica che gl’Italiani non fanno; onde si dice in proverbio, che gl’hanno
il cervello nelle mani.” (Ibidem, 269, note 41). English translation quoted in: Ibidem, 36.
79
Bartolommeo Fazio: On Famous Men, ca. 1455, court of Naples.
80
“putaturque ob eam rem multa de colorum proprietatibus inuenisse. quae ab antiquis tradita ex
plinii et aliorum auctorum lectione didicerat (Baxandall 1964, 103). English translation: Ibidem,
102).
81
“discendisse hic in certamen cum Zeuxide traditur et, cum ille deturlisset uvas pictas tanto
successu, ut in scaenam aves advolarent, ipse detulisse linteum pictum ita veritate repraesentata”
(Pliny 1977-9. vol. 9. XXXV no 65); “Antiphilus puero ignem conflante laudatur ac pulchra alias
78
22
elements in the works of Van Eyck: in a Woman Bathing “there is a lantern in the
bath chamber, just like one lit” and the Lomellini St Jerome is “like a living being
in a library done with rare art: for if you move away from it a little it seems that it
recedes inwards and that is has complete books laid open in it, while if you go
near it is evident that there is only a summary of these.”82 This suggests that
“Fazio probably regarded Van Eyck as the modern equivalent to the ancients in
terms of lifelikeness.”83
‘Figura serpentinata’ and chiaroscuro
Leonardo’s portraits attest to his interest in Netherlandish painting. As many of
his contemporaries he adopted, for example, the three-quarters view [fig. 38].84 In
Italy, sitters were traditionally represented in profile [fig.39], which resulted in a
rather two-dimensional depiction of the body. The use of the thee-quarter view,
made it possible to show mode sides, which created the illusion of a threedimensional figure.
In his Portrait of Cecilia Gallerani (1480-85) [fig.40] Leonardo took this even
further: here, Cecilia’s body is twisted. As a result, the sitter appears to be even
less flat and static.85 The lifelikeness of this image was already recognized by the
artist’s contemporaries. Bernardino Bellincioni (1452–1492) wrote a poem in
1493 in which he addresses nature:
“she seems as if she would listen and not chatter,
consider, to the extent that she will be alive and beautiful, the more will be
your glory in future ages.”86
domo spendescente ipsiusque pueri ore, in quo properant omnium mulierum pensa” (Ibidem, no
138). English translation: Nutall 2004, 36.
82
“In aedem tuabula est in balneo lucerna artenti simillima”; “Hieronymus uiuenti persimilis.
Biblioteca mirae artis. Quipped quae si paulum ab ea discedas uideatur introrsus recedere et totos
libros pandere. Quorum capita modo appropinquanti appareant” (Baxandall 1964, 103). English
translation: Ibidem, 102). The similarity between Facio’s and Pliny’s description is pointed out in:
Nutall 2004, 36.
83
Similarly, it has been argued that “In the eyes of erudite Italians, Netherlandish paintings could
appear as classical art reborn” (Aikema 1999, 183).
84
For a discussion of the three-quarters view in Netherlandish and Florentine art, see: Nutall 2004,
214-229.
85
Ibidem, 227.
86
“Nature, with whom are you angry, who do you envy?; It is Vinci who has portrayed one of
your stars!; Cecilia, so very beautiful today, is the one; Beside whose beautiful eyes the sun
appears as dark shadow; The honour is due to you [nature], even though with his painting; she
seems as if she would listen and not chatter; consider, to the extent that she will be alive and
beautiful, the more will be your glory in future ages; Give thanks to Lodovico, or more; To the
ingegno and hand of Lionardo; Which permit you to participate in posterity; Anyone who will see
23
The extraordinary nature of this image was also recognized by Isabella d’Este: in
1498 she asked Cecilia Gallerani whether she could borrow Leonardo’s portrait,
so she could compare it to works by Bellini. She evidently preferred Leonardo’s
work, since she commissioned him to paint her portrait, which preceded her
request for the Young Christ.87
In the Angel of the Annunciation, the twisted pose is developed even further, into
wat is known as the “figura serpentinata.”88 In contrast to a contraposto, in which
the upper part of the body is parallel to the lower part of the body, the shoulders of
figure are turned in relation to the hips. As a result, he “no longer simply balanced
weight in a plane but resolves a system of direction in which no single direction is
dominant.”89 When the eye follows the twists of this pose it “reads each degree of
the turn in space and responds to each surface.”90 The fact that the eye of the
viewer follows the twisted body, creates the illusion of a three-dimensional
image.91
In the Angel of the Annunciation, the lifelikeness of the figure is increased by the
use of light and dark. This not only shown by the copies, but is also suggested by
the fact that Vasari’s account of the “head of the angel” is immediately followed
by a discussion of the artist’s ability to evoke the illusion of relief by means of
light and shadow.92 As stated by Leonardo himself, relief can make an image
appear to be real: “Only painting presents a marvel to those who contemplate it,
because it makes that which is not so seem to be in relief and to project from the
her thus, though it will be too late; Too see her alive, will say: it is enough for us; To understand
what is nature and what is art” (translation in: Kemp 1997, 246-8).
87
Brown 1981, 22-3. Isabella had written in the letter of 26 April 1498: “Essendone hogi accaduto
vedere certi belli retracti de man de Zoanne Bellino, siami venute in rigionamento de l’opere de
Leonardo cum desiderio de vedere al paragone di queste [che] havemo, et ricordandone che ‘l v’ha
retracta voi dal naturale vi pregamo che per il presente cavallaro, quale mandiamo a posta per
questo, ne vogliati mandare esso vostro retracto, perché ultra che ‘l ne satisfarà al paragone
vederemo anche voluntieri il vostro volto; et subito facta la comparatione vi lo rimetteremo...”
(quoted in: Pedretti 1979, 181).
88
The development of this pose is discussed in: Pedretti 1979.
89
Summers 1972, 274.
90
Strong 1979, 411.
91
Ibidem, 409-11.
92
“È cosa mirabile che quello ingegno, che avendo desiderato di dar sommo relievo alle cose che
egli faceva, andava tanto con lómbre scure a trovare i fondi de’ più scuri che cercava neri che
ombrassino e fussino più scuri degli altri neri, per fare che ‘l chiaro, mediante quegli, fussi più
lucido; ed infine riusciva questo modo tanto tinto, che non vi rimandendo chiaro, avevon più forma
di cose fatte per contraffare una notte, che una finezza del lume del dì: ma tutto era per cercare di
dare maggiore relievo, di trovar il fine e la perfezione dell’arte” (Vasari, 1878-1885, vol IV, 26).
24
walls [..].”93 The effect of this technique in this specific work was described by
Vasari, who states that the “angel” is “coming forwards”, thus: towards the
viewer.94
Such animated religious images are discussed in the Paragone:
“At the moment of unveiling [paintings which represent divine deities], the
great multitude of people who have assembled there immediately throw
themselves to the ground, worshipping the painting and praying to the one
who is figured in it, in order to acquire the health that they have lost and for
their eternal salvation, as if in their minds such a god were alive and
present.95
Thus, lifelike images create the illusion of the presence of the represent deities
and are even treated as if they were the deity itself.
Blurring the boundaries between the painting and the viewer
The Angel of the Annunciation not only represents a lifelike figure: Leonardo has
even attempted to bridge the boundary between the painting and the viewer.
This is, partly, the result of the twisted pose. In order to explain this, I will
compare the work to another painting, which dates form around the same time as
the Portrait of Cecilia Gallerani: the Virgin on the Rocks [fig.41]. According to
Leonardo expert Carlo Pedretti, the ‘rotational’ pose of the angel in the front
should be seen as another root of the ‘figura sepentinata’.96 The angel figures as
the type of mediator which is discussed by Leon Battista Alberti (1404-1472) in
his Della Pittura:
“I like there to be someone in the historia who tells the spectators what is
going on, and either beckons them with his hand to look, or with ferocious
expression and forbidding glance challenges them not to come near, as if he
wished their business to be secret, or points to some danger or remarkable
93
da Vinci 1956 (McMahon), vol II, 1956 (from now on abbreviated as: McM) §108.
“venendo innanzi” (Vasari, 1878-1885, vol IV, 26). English translation: Nicholl 2004, 562 note
24.
95
“E nello scoprire [le pitture rapressentatrici delle divine deita], la gran moltitudine de populi che
qui vi concorrono immediate si gittanno a terra quella adorando e pregando per cui tale pittura, è
figurata, de l’aquisto della perduta sanita e della etterna salute, non altra mente che se tale Iddea
fusse lì presente in vitta” (Paragone §8).
96
Pedretti 1979, 182.
94
25
thing in the picture, or by his gestures invites you to laugh or weep with
them.”97
Not only the pointing gesture of the angel in the Virgin on the Rocks, but also her
pose express her role as this mediator: while her body is turned towards the other
figures, she is looking at the viewer.
The ‘figura serpentinata’ of the Angel of the Annunciation creates a similar
connection between the painting and the spectator. The angel’s relation to the
painted space is enhanced by the fact that part of his body seems to disappear in
the dark background.98 At the same time, his right arm, which is strongly lit and
foreshortened, almost enters the beholder’s space.99 These formal elements create
the illusion that the figure has just emerged from the dark, in order to tell his
message, but can disappear again any moment.
Moreover, like the angel in the Virgin on the Rocks this figure also draws the
viewer’s attention to a specific event. However, this event is not represented in the
image, but will take place on the other side of the picture plane: the Mary-viewer
will carry the son of God.
The blurring of the boundaries between the spectator’s and the painted space had
already been explored in Netherlandish painting. A famous example is the mirror
in Van Eyck’s Arnolfini Portrait [fig.42]. This reflects two figures, one of whom
may be the artist himself. This theory is strengthened by the fact that the
inscription above it reads “Johannes de Eyck fuit hic/ 1434”. In addition, these
words may refer to the idea that a painting is like a mirror and that the artist was
present to represent the world for the viewer.100 According to James Marrow, the
Arnolfini Portrait is an example of the “new pictorial and illusionistic possibilities
of art, combined with the implications of [this] new art for the beholders.”101
97
Et piacemi sia nella storia chi admonisca at insegni ad noi quello che ivi si facci: o chiami con la
mano a vedere o, con viso cruccioso e chon li occhi turnati, minacci che niuno verso loro vada; o
dimostri qualche pericolo o cosa ivi maravigliosa o te inviti ad pianiere con loro insieme o a ridere;
et così qualunque cosa fra loro o teco facciano i dipinti, tutto apartenga a hornare o a insegniarti la
storia.” (Alberti 1950, 94). Translation: Pardo 1989, 80.
98
The dark background is present in each of the painted copies. The element had been exploited in
many ‘dramatic close-ups’ of the Netherlandish type, such as Memling’s and Antonello’s Salvator
Mundi’s. Moreover, it was present in portraits which were executed by van Eyck, van der Weyden
and other Netherlandish artists which were made after the 1420’s (Aikema 1999, p.186. cat no 2).
99
Pardo 1989, 72; 78.
100
Ridderbos 2005, 7-68.
101
Marrow 1986, 161.
26
The Allegory of Vanitas [fig.43] by Giovanni Bellini (c. 1430– 1516) also
includes the viewer by means of a mirror. This work probably was probably part
of a restello, which is a richly decorated mirror, surrounded by small paintings.102
It represents a female allegorical figure, who is pointing at a mirror. This could
refer to the saying “know thyself”. If so, this would have fitted very well with the
real mirror to which this painting was attached. Interestingly, the face of the
viewer could not only be seen there, but is also ‘reflected’ the painted mirror.103
Thus, as the Angel of the Annunciation, this painting required the beholder to
complete the work.
102
103
Goffen 1989, 224.
Ibidem, 231-4; Aikema 1999, p.232, cat no 25.
27
Chapter 4: The implications of the inclusion of the
beholder
The gender of the beholder
The face which is reflected in the mirror in Bellini’s Allegory of Vanitas is male,
which indicates that the restello was commissioned by a male patron. This is not
an exception: most images, especially those representing (nude) women, are
believed to have been intended for male viewers.104 Similarly, it has been argued
that erotic male figures which were produced during the Italian Renaissance
probably “express men’s enjoyment of the male body”.105 In fact, as many other
depictions of angels and young Christ’s by Leonardo, the Angel of the
Annunciation has been labelled ‘homo-erotic.’106
However, like the Carrying the Cross, where the viewer could take the role of
Veronica, the Angel of the Annunciation also places the viewer in the position of a
woman. Moreover, I would like to point out that Isabella’s request for a twelve
year old Christ, represented in a “sweet and elegant manner” shows that such
young, almost female, male figures were also appreciated by female patrons.107
Therefore, I would like to explore the possibility of a female viewer of this image.
Unfortunately, little is known about how women who lived during the fifteenth
and early sixteenth century perceived works of art.108 There is much more
information on how male authors presumed women to think and act in relation to
images. It has been argued that “up to the nineteenth century, men took it for
granted that women have a sensuous response to male beauty”. 109 The second part
of a romance in Andrea Baiardi’s ottava rima, entiteled Il Philogyne110, for
104
Mulvey 1992 (originally 1975); Pollock 1988.
Walters 1978, 14.
106
For example in: Nicholl 2004, 471.
107
It may be relevant that the Angel of the Annunciation appears to have evolved from the Salvator
Mundi, which has been connected to Isabella’s commission. In fact, Isabella requested the
Youthful Christ in 1504, which is around the time Leonardo made the first sketch which can be
related to the project of the angel. On the other hand, the information which I have presented thus
far does not suggest that the Angel of the Annunciation was commissioned by or created for
Isabella.
108
Walters 1978, 15-6, quote on p.16.
109
Ibidem, 15.
110
This work was first published in Parma in 1507. It became a bestseller and multiple editions
were published (Vaccaro 2000, 109-10).
105
28
example, tells the story of a woman who was astonished by a man who had been
depicted in a portrait. She obtained a reproduction of the work and started to kiss
it and speak to it, as if it were the man himself. Later, she met the represented
man in person, after which she desired to kiss him as well.111
What did Leonardo write about the gender of the viewer? In order to answer this
question I analyzed the presumed gender of the spectator and the represented
figure in the Paragone. I discovered that only in two fragments Leonardo
explicitly mentions a male beholder who is looking at a depicted woman.112 In
three paragraphs the viewer is grammatically male (which could also be
interpreted as neutral), but the gender of the object of love is left unclear.113 In one
case a lover, whose gender could be interpreted as either male or neutral, is
reminded of a female beloved.114 Most interesting is §18 in which there is a clear
example of a female viewer. The object of her love is neutral:
“O mistresses, what poet will place the true effigy of your deity before you
with words as true what the painter will do? What will demonstrate to you
the course of rivers, forests, valleys, and country sides representing where
you have passed pleasures with more truth than the painter?”115
It is striking to find such a direct address to female viewers. On the one hand, I
need to be cautious not to read too much into this fragment, since it is the only
instance in the Paragone which explicitly presumes a female viewer. Moreover,
111
Ibidem, 110.
Paragone §19: “Tolgassi un poeta che descriva le bellezze d’una donna al suo inamorato, et
tolgassi un pittore che la figuri, vedrassi dove la natura volgera più il giudicatore inamorato.”
(italics are mine); §25: “[...] se’l poeta dice di fare accendere gli homini ad amare è cosa principale
della spetie di tutti gli animali, Il pittore à potenzia di fare il medesimo e tanto più che vi mette
inanzi a l’amante la propria effiggi della cosa amata. Il quale speso fa con quella bacciandola e
parlando con quella, quello che non farebbe con le medesime bellezze postole inanzi dal scrittore.
E tanto più supera l’ingegni de li homini, ad amare et inamorarsi de pittura che no rapressenta
alcuna donna viva.” (italics are mine).
113
Paragone §14: “Con questa si move li amante in verso li simulacri della cosa amata a parlare
con le imitate pitture” (italics are mine); §21: “[...] ma molto più fara le proportionali bellezze d’un
angelico viso posto in pittura [...] E sse tal armonia delle bellezze sarano mostrato allo amante di
quella da chi tale bellezze sonno immitate, senza dubbio esso restara con istupenda admiratione et
gaudio incomparabile e superiore a tutti gli altri sensi.” (italics are mine); §31:“Con questa si dà
copia alli amanti della causa de loro amori. Con questa si risserva le bellezze, le quali il tempo et
la natura fa fugitive.” (italics are mine).
114
“Apresso a qualche fonte tu possi rivedere te amante, con la tua amata nelli fioriti prati sotto le
dolci ombre delle verdeggianti piante, non ricceverai tu altro piaccere che ad udire tal effectto
descritto dal poeta?” (Paragone §23).
115
“Qual poeta con parole ti mettera inanzi, o amate, la vera effiggie della tua iddea con tanta
verita qual fara il pittore? Quale sia quello che ti dimonstrerà siti de’ fiumi, boschi, valli et
campagne dove si rapressenti li tuoi passati piacceri con più verita ch’el pittore?” (Idem. §18).
112
29
Leonardo seems to have added these lines for rhetorical reasons: it has been noted
that it “suggests a scene from a prose romance like Boccaccio’s Filocolo, where a
beautiful garden is the setting for varied discourses on the theme of love.”116 On
the other hand, the fact that only in a few instances the spectator is explicitly male,
while in other places its gender is left unclear, means that a female viewer is not
automatically excluded. Therefore, it is possible that Leonardo’s Angel of the
Annunciation was intended for a female spectator.
The expected reaction of the viewer
At the same time, it should be stressed that there fundamental differences between
the expected behaviour of men and women. This becomes clear, for example,
when reading Leonardo’s notes on the rules of decorum: he states that figures
should be depicted differently according to their, age, gender, social status etc.117
Leonardo especially emphasises that women should be represented as modest,
while their legs should be closed.118 This clearly conforms to contemporary
expectations of women, which defines their role in society by their sexuality.119
This ideology may also be relevant for the relation between the Angel of the
Annunciation and the Mary-viewer.
The life of the Virgin Mary has particularly been linked to ideas on chastity.120
Similarly, in Leonardo’s images Mary is usually represented as a chaste woman.
In Saint Anne, Virgin, Child and Saint John [fig.44], for example, she is looking
down at her child, while smiling. In the Trattato della Pittura Leonardo relates
women’s heads which are ‘bent and inclined to one side’ to modesty.121 Likewise,
Gian Paolo Lomazzo (1538-1600) presents downcast eyes as a sign of modesty
and honesty.122 Vasari argued that her smile could be interpreted as showing her
content of the sight of her newborn. He explained the downcast eyes of Mary as a
116
Farago 1992, 339.
McM §252-255,§387,§388-§392.
118
“Woman should be represented with modest gestures, the legs close together, the arms gathered
together, heads bent and inclined to one side” (McM §253); and “woman and girls should not have
their legs raised nor too far apart, because that shows boldness and general lack of modesty, while
straight legs indicate timidity and modesty” (McM §392).
119
On contemporary expectations of women, and the way these can be recognized in the way
women were portrayed, see: Simons 1992.
120
Warner 1978, 54. Ellington 1995, 258.
121
McM §253.
122
This comment is made in reference to Leonardo’s Leda. See: Calvesi 1988, 142.
117
30
sign of both motherly contemplation, as well as modesty and honesty.123 Leonardo
had also used these expressions of virtue in many other representations of the
Holy Virgin.
To what extend was the Mary-viewer also expected to identify with her modesty,
honesty and chastity? Although these elements were strongly promoted in
contemporary texts and images, including Leonardo’s, it is emphasized in the
Paragone that, in contrast to the poet, the painter can make a viewer fall in love
with a depicted figure:
“[…] if the poet says that he kindles love in men, this is the principal thing
in all species of animals. The painter has the power to do the same, and
much more because he puts the actual effigy of the thing loved in front of the
lover. Often the lover kisses the effigy and speaks to it, which he would not
do if the same beauties were put in front of him by the writer. [The painter]
overpowers the ingegni of men even more, for he makes them love and fall
in love with a painting that does not represent any living woman.”124
This fragment reminds of anecdotes in Pliny’s Natural History. The antique writer
describes, for example, a representation of Aphrodite, which became the object of
love of a man, who started to lustfully touch it.125 Leonardo uses this text to
explain that a painter is able to create the illusion of a real person, which the
viewer might treat accordingly.
Leonardo even suggests that paintings can make a viewer fall in love with
‘something divine’ (whatever that may be):
“Once I happened to make a painting which represented something divine
that was bought by someone who loved it, who wanted to remove the
representation of the deity so he would be able to kiss it without misgivings.
123
Ibidem, 143. Vasari wrote: “Volendo mostrare quella modestia e quella cimilà, ch’è in una
virgine, contentissima d’allegrezza nel vedere la belezza del suo figliuolo che con tenerezza
sosteneva in grebo, ce mentre che ella con onestissima guardatura a basso scorgeva un san Givanni
piccol fanciuolo, che si andava trastullando con un pecorino[...] considerazioni veramento dallo
intelletto ed ingeno di Lionardo” (quoted in: Ibidem, 141).
124
“ se’l poeta dice di fare accendere gli homini ad amare è cosa principale della spetie di tutti gli
animali, Il pittore à potenzia di fare il medesimo e tanto più che vi mette inanzi a l’amante la
propria effiggie della cosa amata. Il quale speso fa con quella bacciandola e parlando con quella,
quello che non farebbe con le medesime bellezze postole inanzi dal scrittore. E tanto più supera
l’ingegni de li homini, ad amare et inamorarsi de pittura che no rapressenta alcuna donna viva”
(Paragone §25).
125
Shepherd 2000, 64-5.
31
But in the end his conscience rose above his sighs and his lust, and he was
forced to remove it from his house.”126
In this passage Leonardo is obviously exaggerating. However, the point which he
wants to make, in my opinion, is that painting is extremely powerful, because it
can deceive a man to such an extent that he will fall in love with a depicted figure.
This powerful effect of religious images is also revealed in two anecdotes which
are told in Vasari’s Lives. In his account of the life of Fra Bartolemeo he discusses
an image of a Saint Sebastian. According to Vasari, the artist had created this
work in order to prove that he was able to paint nudes. The result was an image
“with very good flesh colouring, of sweet aspect and great beauty”. The work was
put on display in the San Marco in Florence. However, not long thereafter it was
removed, since “the friars found out by the confessional that women had sinned in
looking at it, because of the comely and lascivious realism with which Fra
Bartolomeo had endowed it.” It was brought to the chapter house, after which it
was sold to the king of France.127
Vasari also tells the story of a man who went to Toto Del Nunziata in order to ask
for a Madonna which would not arouse lustful thought. Toto met this requirement
by painting a bearded Virgin. 128
These anecdotes are told within two different contexts. However, they express
some vital ideas which are also present in the fragment in the Paragone: first of
all, painted religious figures can evoke lustful responses; secondly, this type of
arousal was seen as uncomfortable, or even sinful, both by male, and by female
126
“Et gia interviene a me far una pittura che rapressentava una cosa divina, la quale comprerata
dall’amante di quella, volse levarne la rapressentazione de tal Dietà per poterla bracciare sanza
sospetto. Ma in fine la conscientia vines il sospiri e la libbidine, et fu forza che lui cela leva lei di
casa” (Paragone §25).
127
“[…] e così se ne tornò a Fiorenza, dove era stato morso più volte, che non sapeva fare
gli’ignudi. Volse egli dunque mettersi a prova, e con fatiche mostrare ch’era attissimo ad ogni
eccellente lavoro di quella arte, come alcun altro. Laonde per prova fece in un quadro un San
Sebastiano ignudo, con colorito moto alla carne simile, di dolce aria, e di corrispondere bellezza
alla persona parimente finito; dove infinite lode acquistò appresso agli artefici. Dicesi che stando
in chiesa per mostra questa figura, avevano trovato i frati nelle confessioni donne, che nel
guardarlo avevano peccato per la leggiarda e lasciva imitazione del vivo datagli dalla virtù di Fra
Bartolomeo: per il che levatolo di chiesa, lo misero nel capitolo, dove non dimorò molto tempo,
che da Giovan Batista della Palla comprato, fu mandato al re di Francia.” (Vasari 1878-1885,
vol.4, 188). English translation: Freedberg 1989, 346.
128
“Dicendogli una volta un cittadino, che gli dispiacevano certi dipintori che non sapevano fare se
non cose lascive, e che perciò desiderava che gli facesse un quadro di Madonna, che avesse
l’onesto, fusse attempata, e non movesse a lascivia, il Nunziata gliene dipinse una con la barba”
(Vasari 1878-1885, vol..5, 535) English version: Freedberg 1989, 346.
32
viewers. Therefore, the man (if the ‘he’ refers to a man) in the Paragone, as the
priests in San Marco’s church, eventually abandons the work of art.
This fragment from the Paragone can also be related to Leonardo’s interest in the
tension between the erotic and the religious, which is present in the Salvator
Mundi, the Young Christ Teaching and the Angel of the Annunciation. On the one
hand, these works could be used for religious purposes. In addition, the letter by
Isabella d’Este shows that the “sweetness and charm of manner” of the young,
almost feminine men, could be a source of visual, perhaps even erotic, pleasure, as
well.
The view that the erotic nature of such religious paintings could be interpreted in a
negative way seems to be hinted at by a note which has been dated to 1505, which
is one year after Isabella d’Este had requested the Youthful Christ. It has been
translated as: “When I made a Christ-child you put me in prison, and now if I
show Him grown up you will do worse to me.”129
129
“Quandi io feci Domeneddio putto mi metteste in prigione, ora s’io lo fo grande, voi mi farete
peggio” (Codex Atlanticus, 284 a). Translation: Nicholl 2004, 470.
33
Conclusion
In the Angel of the Annunciation Leonardo attempted to create a lifelike figure, by
means of the angel’s pose, foreshortened arm and the use of light and dark. He
invites the viewer to connect with the image by means of the character’s gaze,
smile and gestures. This results in the blurring of the boundaries between the
painting and the viewer, by making the viewer become part of the represented
narrative. These elements had been used in Netherlandish images, but were
exploited to the fullest in Leonardo’s inventions, especially his Angel of the
Annunciation.
By placing the viewer is a specific role, such as a doctor, who was taught by the
Young Christ; or Veronica, who showed compassion when Christ was carrying
the cross, or Mary, who was told she would carry God’s son, the viewer could
gain a better understanding of the religious meaning of the scene. The Angel of the
Annunciation could, for example, be seen as a strong encouragement to
experience the feelings of the biblical mother of Christ. At the same time, the
erotic nature of the image creates a strong tension with Mary’s presumed chastity.
As a result, the work was likely to have been interpreted as a highly inappropriate
depiction of this event.
The problematic nature of the Angels of the Annunciation might explain why the
artist eventually decided to change this figure in a St John the Baptist, of which, as
Bodo Brinkmann has stated “many versions” have survived. The artist had to
change little in order to achieve this transformation, since both biblical characters
are in some ways similar: both predict the coming of Christ, and share this
knowledge by addressing listeners. The upward pointing gesture of the St John the
Baptist in the Louvre also seems to directly address the viewer, as if it substitutes
the words “Repent, for the kingdom of heavens has come near”. As in the Angel of
the Annunciation, his smile could refer to his joy in announcing this to the
viewer.130 The main difference between John the Baptist and the Gabriel is, that
the former told his message to many people, while the latter addressed a particular
130
For a discussion of the similarities between angels and St John the Baptist, including their
shared joy about their role in salvation of mankind, see: Lavin 1981.
34
person: the icon of chastity. The less specific inclusion of the beholder in the St
John the Baptist might have made this (equally erotic) image more acceptable.
Leonardo was not the only artist who was interested in the involvement of the
spectator in the represented scene: this also seems to have been a vital
characteristic of other artists who were active in the Netherlands and Northern
Italy (especially Lombard and Venice) during the fifteenth and early sixteenth
century. Examples of these are Jan van Eyck, Hans Memling, Giovanni Bellini
and Antonello da Messina. Much more extensive research should be devoted to
this subject. One could, for example, further investigate the different methods
which were used by artists in Italy and across the Alps, in order to obtain a better
understanding of the development and continuity of the inclusion of the beholder
in painting. In addition, it would be useful to create an overview of the different
treatments of this matter in contemporary (art theoretical and literary) texts. After
this, the relation between these texts and the works of art could be analysed.
Such investigations could increase our knowledge of the differences and
similarities between those artists who, like Leonardo, explored different
possibilities to involve the viewer in a represented scene.
35
Works cited
Aikema, Bernard (ed.). Renaissance Venice and the North: Crosscurrents in the
time of Bellini, Dürer and Titian. Milan, 1999.
Aikema, Bernard “Hieronymous Bosch in Italy?” in: Jos Koldeweij etc.(ed.)
Hieronymus Bosch: New Insights into His Life and Work. Rotterdam, 2001: 2431.
Alberti, Leon Battista. Della Pittura. Luigi Mallè (ed.). Florence, 1950.
Alberti, Leon Battista. Over de Schilderkunst. Trans. Lex Hermans. Introduction:
Caroline van Eck and Robert Zwijnenberg. Amsterdam and Meppel: Boom, 1996.
Baxandall, Michael. “Bartholomaeus Facius on Painting: a Fifteenth-Century
Manuscript of the De Viris Illustribus.” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld
Institutes. vol. 27, 1964: 90-107.
Bott, Berhard (ed.). Veit Stoß in Nürenberg. München, 1983.
Brown, David Alan. The Young Coreggio and his Leonardesque Sources. Diss. London,
1981.
Burkhardt, Jacob “Das Altarbild”. In: von Boch etc. (ed.). Jacob Burkhardt Werke.
Vol.6. München, 2000: 15-145.
Calvesi, Maurizio. “Leda” in: Alessandro Vezzosi etc. (eds.) Leonardo: La
Pittura. Firenze : Giunti Martello, 1988: 137-153.
della Chiesa, Angela Ottino. L’Opera Completa di Leonardo Pittore. Milano,
1967.
Christiansen, Keith. “Giovanni Bellini and the Practice of Devotional Painting” In
idem.: Giovanni Bellini and the Art of Devotion. Indianapolis, Ind : Indianapolis
Museum of Art, 2004: 7-59.
36
Collareta, Marco. “Antonello e il Tema dell’Annunciazione”. In: Mauro Lucco
(ed.) Antonello da Messina: l’Opera Completa. 2006: 64-73.
Dukerton, Jill. “North and South: Painting Techniques in renaissance Venice.” In:
Aikema, Bernard (ed.). Renaissance Venice and the North: Crosscurrents in the
time of Bellini, Dürer and Titian. Milan, 1999: 92-103.
Ellington, Donna Spivey. “Impassioned Mother or Passive Icon: The Virgin's
Role in Late Medieval and Early Modern Passion Sermons”. Renaissance
Quarterly. 48.2, 1995: 227-261.
Farago, Claire J. Leonardo da Vinci's Paragone: a Critical Interpretation with a
New Edition of the Text in the Codex Urbinas, Leiden [etc.]: Brill, 1992.
Freedberg, David. The Power of Images: Studies in the History and Theory of
Response. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989.
Gilbert, Creighton E. Italian Art 1400-1500: Sources and Documents. Englewood
Cliffs, N.J. : Prentice-Hall, 1980.
Goffen, Rona Giovanni Bellini. New Haven & London, 1989.
Goffen, Rona. “Crossing the Alps: Portraiture in Renaissance Venice.” In:
Aikema, Bernard (ed.). Renaissance Venice and the North: Crosscurrents in the
Time of Bellini, Dürer and Titian. Milan, 1999: 114-131.
Guasti, Cesare. Alessandra Macinghi negli Strozzi: Lettere di una Gentildonna
Fiorentina del Secolo XV ai Figliuoli Esuli. Ancona, 1972.
Kemp, Martin. Leonardo da Vinci: the Marvellous works of Nature and Man.
Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1981.
37
Kemp, Martin. Leonardo Da Vinci: the Marvellous Works of Nature and Man.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006 (Originally: London: Dent, 1981).
Kemp, Martin. Behind the picture: Art and Evidence in the Italian Renaissance.
Yale University Press, 1997.
Kubovy, Michael. The Psychology of Perspective and Renaissance Art.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988.
Lavin, Marilyn. “The Joy of the Bridegroom’s Friend: Smiling Faces in Fra
Filoppi, Raphael and Leonardo.” In: Moshe Barasch etc. (ed.). Art the Ape of
Nature: Studies in Honor of H. W. Janson. New York (etc.), 1981.
Leibrich, Julia. Die Verkündigung an Maria. Die Ikonographie der italienischen
Darstellung von den Anfängen bis 1500. Köln [etc.], 1997.
Marabottini, Alessandro (ed). Antonello da Messina. Rome, 1981.
Marani, Pietro C. “Leonardo and the Christ Carrying the Cross” in: Paolo
Parlavecchia, (ed.). Leonardo and Venice. Milan, 1992: 344-357
Markgraf, Ellen, Antonello da Messina und die Niederlande. Frankfurt am Main
etc., 1990.
Marrow, James. “Symbol and Meaning in Northern European Art of the Late
Middle Ages and the Early Renaissance”. Simiolus 16, 1986: 150-169.
Möller, Emil. “Leonardo da Vincis Brustbild eines Engels und Seine
Kompositionen des S. Johannes-Baptista“. Monatshefte für Kunstwissenschaft. III,
1911, 529-39.
Mulvey, Laura, “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema”, (originally 1975) in
Caughie, John (ed.). The Sexual Subject: a Screen Reader in Sexuality. London,
1992: 22-34.
38
Nelson,
Jonathan
Katz.
Leonardo
e
la
Reinvenzione
della
Figura
Femminile: Leda, Lisa e Maria. XLVI Letteratura Vinciana, 22 April 2006
[translated from English by Silvia Catitti]. Firenze: Giunti Editore, 2007.
Nicholl, Charles. Leonardo da Vinci: Flights of the Mind. London: Allen
Lane, 2004.
Nutall, Paula. From Flanders to Florence. New Haven: Yale University Press,
2004.
Nutall, Paula. “Pittura degli antichi Paesi Bassi a Firenze: Commentatori,
Committenti e Influsso.” In: Bert W. Meijer (ed.). Firenze e gli Antichi Paesi
Bassi: 1430-1530. Firenze, 2008: 22-37.
Pardo, Mary. “The Subject of Salvoldo’s Magdalene”. The Art Bulletin. vol. 71,
no 1. 1989: 67-91.
Pedretti, Carlo. “Ancora sul Rapporto Giorgione-Leonardo e l’Origine del Ritratto
di Spalla”. In: Giorgione: Atti del Convegno Internazionale di Studio per il 5.
Centenario della Nascita. Castelfranco Veneto, 1979.
Pollock, Griselda, Vision and Difference: Femininity, Feminism and Histories of
Art. London, 1988.
Pliny. Naturalis Historiae. Francisco Semi (ed.). 13 vol. Pisa, 1977-9.
Ridderbos, Bernhard “Objects and Questions” in: Ridderbos, Bernhard, Anne van
Buren and Henk van Veen (eds). Early Netherlandish Paintings: rediscovery,
reception and research. Amsterdam University Press, 2005: pp. 4-169.
Ringbom, S. Icon to Narrative: the Rise of the Dramatic Close-up in FifteenthCentury Devotional Painting. Doorndijk, 1965.
Shearman John . Andrea del Sarto. Vol.1. Oxford, 1965
39
Shearman, John. Only Connect… Art and the Spectator in the Italian Renaissance.
Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992 (originally 1988).
Shepherd, Rupert. “Art and life in Renaissance Italy: a Blurring of Identities?” in:
Rogers, Mary (ed.). Fashioning Identities in Renaissance Art. Ashgate, 2000: 6378.
Simons, Patricia. “Women in Frames: the Gaze, the Eye, the Profile in
Renaissance Portraiture.” in: Norma. Broude and Mary D. Gerrard. The
Expanding Discourse: Feminism and Art History. New York, 1992: 38-57.
Sluijter, Eric Jan. Rembrandt and the Female Nude. Amsterdam, 2006.
Snow-Smith, Joanne.
The “Salvator Mundi” of Leonardo da Vinci.
Seattle: Henry Art Gallery, Univ. of Washington, 1982.
Strong, Donald Sanderson. Leonardo on the Eye: an English Translation and
Critical Commentary of MS. D in the Bibliothéque Nationale, Paris, with Studies
on Leonardo’s Methodology and Theories on Optics. New York: Garland
Pub., 1979.
Suida, Wilhelm. Leonardo und sein Kreis. München, 1929.
Summers, David. “Maniera and Movement: the Figura Serpentinata”, The Art
Quarterly. XXXV, 1972, pp.269-301.
Tikkanen, J.J. Zwei Gebärden mit dem Zeigefinger. Helsingfors, 1913.
Vaccaro, Mary. “Beauty and Identity in Parmigianino’s Portraits.” in: Rogers,
Mary (ed.). Fashioning Identities in Renaissance Art. Ashgate, 2000: 107-118.
Vasari, Giorgio. Le Vite de’ Più Eccellenti Pittori Scultori ed Architettori.
Gaetano Milanesi (ed.). 8 vols. Firenze: Sansoni, 1878-1885.
40
Veltman, Kim H. Linear Perspective and the Visual Dimensions of Science and
Art.
In
collaboration
with
Kenneth
D.
Keele.
München
: Deutscher
Kunstverlag, 1986.
da Vinci, Leonardo. Treatise on Painting [Codex Urbinas Latinus 1270].
Translated and Annotated by A. Philip McMahon. 2 vols. Introduction by Ludwig
H. Heydenreich. Princeton University Press, 1956.
de Vos, Dirk. Hans Memling: the Complete Works. London: Thames and Hudson,
1994.
Walters, Margaret. The Nude Male: a new perspective.
New York [etc.] :
Paddington press, 1978.
Warner, Marina, Alone of All Her Sex: The Myth and the Cult of the Virgin Mary.
London: Quartet Books Limited, 1978.
Wohl, Hellmut. The Paintings of Domenico Veneziano ca. 1410-1461: A Study in
Florentine art of the Early Renaissance. Oxford: Phaidon, 1980.
Zwijnenberg,
Robert.
Introduction.
Paragone:
Verhandeling
over
de
Schilderkunst. Amsterdam: Boom, 1996.
41
Images
Fig.1 Anonymous after Leonardo da Vinci. Angel of the Annunciation. 066,5 x
47,5 cm. Hermitage, St Petersburg. Inv.no1637.
Fig. 2 Anonymous after Leonardo da Vinci (Giampietrino?). St. John the Baptist.
Oil on panel, 63,5x50cm. Basel, Öffentliche Kunstsammlung. Inv.no1879. Before
first restoration.
42
Fig. 3 Anonymous after Leonardo da Vinci (Giampietrino?). Angel of the
Annunciation. Oil on panel, 63,5x50cm. Basel, Öffentliche Kunstsammlung.
Inv.no1879. After first restoration.
Fig. 4 Anonymous after Leonardo da Vinci (Giampietrino?). St. John the Baptist.
Oil on panel, 63,5x50cm. Basel, Öffentliche Kunstsammlung. Inv.no1879. After
second restoration.
43
Fig. 5 Leonardo da Vinci. St John the Baptist. 1513-16. Oil on panel, 69 x 57 cm
Musée du Louvre, Paris.
Fig. 6 Pupil of Leonardo da Vinci (and Leonardo da Vinci himself?). Angel of the
Annunciation. Sketch.
Fig. 7 Leonardo da Vinci. Angelo Incarnato. ca. 1513-15. Drawing.
44
Fig.8 Bandinelli (after Leonardo). Angel of the Annunciation. Whereabouts
unknown. Photo: Christie, Manson & Woods.
Fig.9 Cima da Conegliano. St John the Baptist with Saints. 1491-92. Oil on panel,
305 x 205 cm. Madonna dell'Orto, Venice.
Fig. 10 Ghirlandaio, Domenico. Preaching of St John the Baptist. 1486-90.
Fresco. Cappella Tornabuoni, Santa Maria Novella, Florence.
45
Fig. 11 Rustici, Giovanni Francesco. Preaching of St John the Baptist
1506-11. Bronze, height: 265 cm (with base). Baptistry, Florence.
Fig.12 Master of the Chantilly Baptist. St. John the Baptist. Chantilly, Musée
Condé.
Fig.13 Fra Angelico. Paintings for the Silver Treasury of SS. Annunciata:
Annunciation (detail). Tempera and gold on panel, each scene approximately 151/8 x 14-5/8 in. (38.5 x 37 cm). Museo di San Marco, Florence.
46
Fig.14 Domenico Veneziano. Annunciation (predella of an altarpiece which used
to be in the Santa Lucia de Magnoli in Florence). ca.1445. Tempera on wood, 27 x
54 cm. Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge.
Fig15 Leonardo da Vinci. Annunciation. 1472-75. Tempera on wood, 98 x 217
cm. Galleria degli Uffizi, Florence.
Fig.16 Jan (and Hubert ?) van Eyck. The Ghent Altarpiece: Prophet Zacharias;
Angel of the Annunciation (detail). Oil on wood, 164,8 x 71,7 cm. 1432.Oil on
wood. Cathedral of St Bavo, Ghent.
47
Fig. 17 Jan van Eyck. The Annunciation. ca.1435. Oil, transferred from wood to
canvas. 93 x 37 cm. National Gallery of Art, Washington.
Fig.18 Simone Martini. The Annunciation and Two Saints. 1333. Tempera on
wood, 184 x 210 cm. Galleria degli Uffizi, Florence.
48
Fig.19 Veit Stoß. Annunciation. 1517-18. Polychrome limewood, height 515 cm.
St Lorenzkirche, Nuremberg.
Fig.20 Fra Filippo Lippi. Madonna with the Child and two Angels. 1465. Tempera
on wood, 95 x 62 cm. Galleria degli Uffizi, Florence.
49
Fig. 21Antonello da Messina. Salvator Mundi. 1475131. Oil on panel, 39 x 30 cm.
National Gallery, London.
Fig. 22 Memling, Hans. Salvator Mundi. 1478. Oil on oak panel, 38,1 x 28,2 cm.
Norton Simon Museum of Art, Pasadena.
Fig.23 Jan van Eyck. Man in a Turban. 1433. Oil on wood. National Gallery,
London.
131
The date which is inscribed on the cartellino is ambiguous, but could be read as 1475 (Dukerton
1999, 98).
50
Fig.24 Petrus Christus. Potrait of a Carthusian. 1446. Oil on wood, 29,2 x 21,6
cm. Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York.
Fig. 25 Antonello da Messina. Virgin of the Annunciation. Oil on panel. Alte
Pinakothek, Munich.
Fig.26 Antonello da Messina. Virgin Annunciate, c. 1476. Museo Nazionale,
Palermo.
\
51
Fig. 27 Leondo da Vinci. Christ Carrying the Cross. c. 1490’s. Drawing. Musée
du Louvre, Paris. Gallerie dell'Accademia, Venice.
Fig. 28 Andrea Solario. Christ Carrying the Cross. Galleria Borghese, Rome.
Fig. 29 Giampietrino. Christ Carrying the Cross. Akademie der Bildenden Künste,
Vienna.
52
Fig.30 Martin Schongauer. Carrying the Cross. c. 1474. Engraving, 285 x 428
mm. The Hermitage, St. Petersburg.
Fig.31 Hieronymus Bosch. Christ Carrying the Cross. 1515-16. Oil on panel, 74 x
81 cm. Museum voor Schone Kunsten, Ghent.
Fig.32 Martin Schongauer. Road to Calvary.
53
Fig.33 Giovanni Cariani. Christ Carrying the Cross. Milan, Prof. M. Pellicoli
Collection.
Fig.34 Hans Memling. Man of Sorrows. 1480s. Oil on oak panel, 53,4 x 39,1 cm.
Palazzo Bianco, Genoa.
Fig. 35 Marco d’ Oggionno. Salvator Mundi. Rome, Borghese.
54
Fig. 36 Bernardino Luini. Christ among the Doctors. National Gallery, London.
Fig. 37 Correggio. Youthful Christ. ca. 1515, Washington National Gallery.
Fig. 38 Leonardo da Vinci. Portrait of Ginevra de' Benci. 1474-46. Oil on wood,
38,8 x 36,7. cm. National Gallery of Art, Washington.
55
Fig.39 Antonio del Pollaiuolo. Portrait of a Young Woman. c. 1475. Tempera on
wood, 55 x 34 cm. Galleria degli Uffizi, Florence.
Fig.40 Leonardo da Vinci. Portrait of Cecilia Gallerani (Lady with an Ermine).
1483-90. Oil on wood, 54,8 x 40,3 cm. Czartoryski Museum, Cracow.
56
Fig.41 Leonardo da Vinci. Virgin of the Rocks. 1483-86. Oil on panel, 199 x 122
cm. Musée du Louvre, Paris.
Fig.42 Jan van Eyck. Portrait of Giovanni Arnolfini and his Wife (detail). 1434.
Oil on oak. National Gallery, London.
57
Fig. 43 Giovanni Bellini. Four Allegories: Vanity. c. 1490. Oil on wood, 34 x 22
cm. Gallerie dell'Accademia, Venice.
Fig.44 Leonardo da Vinci. Saint Anne, Virgin, Child and Saint John. ca. 1510. Oil
on wood, 168 x 130 cm. Musée du Louvre, Paris.
58